memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Olympic class
This article's only citation is to a book that redirects to the Unlicensed publications page. Is any of this info available form an appropriate source? --8of5 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC) :A little late, but I've overhauled this article using info from licensed sources and moved most of the original stats & text to the Apocrypha section. The decks and locations of the impulse engines, probe/torpedo launcher and nav deflector can be observed on screen, in the Encyclopedia, and from photos of the filming model. -- Cyfa (talk) 14:47, January 3, 2015 (UTC) ::Counting windows is extremely specious reasoning to give deck numbers, i would recommend removing all deck numerations obtained in this manner. there are a number of reasons why the 22nd window down is not necessarily the 22nd deck, so we shouldnt be using supposition to present this. -- Captain MKB 15:03, January 3, 2015 (UTC) :Wow, you're on the ball today ;) I completely agree: Counting window rows can only give a rough idea at best, which is why I didn't just count window rows - There's also this which is a licensed source, but I'm not quite sure yet how to go about incorporating it. Your knowledge and suggestions would be welcome. -- Cyfa (talk) 15:28, January 3, 2015 (UTC) ::my suggestion is for myself to try and stay calm -- this could be a huge boon to our project. are these really licensed to use Star Trek logomarks by CBS Paramount? this means an exponential increase in our ship layout sections if we find these pass our source policy -- Captain MKB 15:52, January 3, 2015 (UTC) :::Well, they're trademarked and copyrighted to CBS Studios Inc, but I can't find anything specifically related to licensing as I did with Anovos http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/User:Cyfa/Talk_%28archived%29#Anovos. I'm also a little wary of using those images here as I read something recently about the use of a complete work and copyright violations http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek:_Ships_of_the_Line_%282015%29, as I understand that each image is a complete work (although, my knowledge of copyright law is neither here nor there)? -- Cyfa (talk) 16:27, January 3, 2015 (UTC) :in terms of the Olympic, because a centerline cutaway could omit subdecks, its hard to use it for deck numeration when you have a cutaway but no labels -- there could be split levels left or right of the ship centerline that would alter the deck numerations achieved from a straight top to bottom count. -- Captain MKB 16:11, January 3, 2015 (UTC) ::But is that any different from the MSDs that we use? I do see your point, though. In fact, I like to use it to explain away the Enterprise-E's deck 29, or the Defiant's deck 5/6 ;) -- Cyfa (talk) 16:27, January 3, 2015 (UTC) :The NCC-1701 and the 1701-D both have extensive blueprinting in reference works so we have clear labels as to what each deck is 'named'/numbered, so those are no problem -- and they give us solid information about the saucers of most of the rest of the Constitution/Galaxy families.. Same goes for the Stargazer and Defiant. For the rest of the MSDs we have, there is this same gray area. I think the Excelsior family of ships are well established because of MSDs in the movies, but we have solid reference as to one deck that is numbered correctly on the 1701-B for example, Deck fifteen seen both on the model and MSD, so that is a logical inference. :As to the Olympic however, a deck chart from 360 here and a window count are possible, but they dont give us a named deck below 1. i think thats the cutoff point for really translating these MSDs. the 1701-E is well documented in dialogue down to the sickbay/engineering way because of the references in First Contact, but decks below (15 i think?) should be considered muddy unless we hear them numbered. in that way the wiki is not offering the crazy split deck theory directly, but we're leaving the door open for it. for consistency's sake, the wiki should not point to a location where deck 25 is on the Sovereign until we hear it clarified in a source, and so forth with the olympic too. we need one additional mentioned deck as our source data to correlate that they could possibly number up and down one by one window, or if something completely different is happening. -- Captain MKB 16:55, January 3, 2015 (UTC) ::for example, with the 1701-A, i hope something completely different is happening. -- Captain MKB 16:57, January 3, 2015 (UTC) :::Ha ha! Yes, I'm sure it was some crewman playing a practical joke! -- Cyfa (talk) 17:23, January 3, 2015 (UTC) No more Star Trek at Walls360 Well, in relation to my 15:25 January 3 2015 post up there, it seems Walls360 no longer have a license for Star Trek products or have just stopped producing/selling them. The above link is broken, and the website seems to be completely devoid of Trek-related goodies. Oh, well. There goes the MSD-like cutaways... -- Cyfa (talk) 21:05, November 28, 2015 (UTC) Help Can someone fix the caption, it says this: The USS PasteurUSS Pasteur in 2395. Every time I try to fix it it doesn't work right, please help.--Typhuss999 (talk) 18:04, October 3, 2017 (UTC) :I assume you are talking about the primary image of the ship infobox? Looks fine on my end. - Bell'Orso (talk) 19:17, October 3, 2017 (UTC) Not image, the caption.--Typhuss999 (talk) 19:24, October 3, 2017 (UTC) :Yes, I know you're talking about a caption. I was trying to get clarification as to what image that caption belongs to. Anyway, it would appear that wiki template links and text formatting are indeed a bit iffy with that particular part of the infobox right now, so I've simply removed those. Seems best to leave it at that for now. - Bell'Orso (talk) 20:00, October 3, 2017 (UTC)